While I agree that Stoneforge isn't busted (and arguably Twin), a poor performance in NBL Modern doesn't prove that a card isn't busted in Modern, only that a card isn't busted in a format with an objectively higher power ceiling. The NBL tournaments in the long run will only ever show what needs to stay on the list, not what can come off the list.
That being said, it does make me laugh that the most busted deck in NBL Modern is the only busted deck I've seen since I started Modern (a little before the Twin ban for perspective). Not super meaningful, but good for a chuckle
Personally I think the best things that can come out of the new Ravnica set are better multicolored modal spells. I'd love to see something like an improved Izzet Charm or Azoria Charm that can help make sure that Control doesn't draw the wrong half of the deck G1. Not sure what improved versions of those cards that don't outright
outclass them look like, but I don't think it'd be hard to make a good modal card that can be a 2-of in Modern that doesn't break Standard
If it wasn't clear, I'm not saying that Humans are somehow bad. Even with my local meta being skewed the way it is I know that humans are one of the best decks out there. Rather, it seem like a deck was being singled out for its mechanics, not its results. I've always thought that decks should only be judged by results only, not mechanics,and yet some decks, particularly "unfair" decks like 5c humans or, more recently, Tron, seemed to be judged by their mechanics, not their results, and at the end of the day, a deck's mechanics and, by extension, their "fairness", shouldn't ever be a factor in ban discussions.
Course I've been in exile due to fumigation so maybe I'm just looking for an argument just to maintain human contact
An I the only only one who thinks Humans gets an unfair rep for the rainbow lands? I come from a LGS with mostly burn and control, but I would think not even being able to run CoCo in a deck that so badly wants it would be a trade off. I think my real question is this: if a deck isn't broken, but can only use creatures of one tribe and colorless cards, is it not OK that they, in exchange for giving up colored non-creature spells, be allowed a rainbow mana base?
Pod was not only banned for the raw amount of meta share it had before being banned, it's one of those cards that simply improves as the pool of creatures and creature-based combos increases over time. I don't see how the meta could possibly power-creep in a way that doesn't inherently power up Pod decks at the same time.
I don't see why we'd unban Punishing Fire when Jund just got a noticeable boost in power via Bloodbraid Elf. Not only that, I don't see what the card does for the meta other than give Jund and other decks more tools to deal with small creature-based decks. If there were a lot more of them in the meta right now I'd say unban it, but while there are certainly some strong small creature-based decks, they aren't in such prominent numbers that we need a card that can potentially push them out of the meta
I'm getting confused about the exact nature of the "Draw-Go Control decks have no free wins" argument (I'm assuming Draw-Go since no one's alluded to 8Rack or Prison decks). Are people arguing that Draw-Go Control should have a T3-T4 god play or sequence of plays that destroys the opponent or locks them out of it?
@headminerve
The quick accessibility issue seems pretty easily fixed by just having a table of contents page like the Current Deck Classification thread, though as Xour said the links seem to be broken at the moment.
Also, will the Current Deck Classification thread ever be updated to include brief descriptions of the decks? It'd be pretty useful for newer players to be able to get a quick idea of what everything does without having to jump into those threads
For the most part I agree with the list, but it seems rather odd that Grixis Death's Shadow is listed in Aggro, but Jund Death's Shadow is listed in Midrange. As far as I can tell from what I've seen on camera, both decks have the same strategy and about the same amount of set up. Is there a key difference I'm unaware of that somehow makes GDS significantly faster than JDS?
Wouldn't the Table of Contents idea lead to faster look ups than the node idea? The node idea requires multiple clicks to browse through each deck description, whereas the ToC would require going to just 1 page and still allow a user to look at descriptions of all the decks, and then it only takes another click. The ToC also avoids worrying about deck classification, which for a large number of users is a large concern
At this point, I prefer either option 1 with a strict enough criteria that Established only has about 1 page worth of decks, or option 2 given some form of organization to make looking through decks relatively painless for newer users. Given that organizing the decks into Aggro, Midrange, Control, Combo and Other seems very unpopular, Lantern's idea of creating a sort of Table of Contents seems like a great way to give newer players a quick 1-page guide to potential Tier 1-2 decks without worrying about older players potentially spending days arguing semantics
To add to what idSurge said, I've been going through old top 8s via TCGPlayer, and not including Team events or MOCS, there's over 30 decks that have top 8'd at least once just between December 2017 and now, including a BW Zombie deck, a Grixis As Foretold Goryo's Deck, and a Mono-Red Prison deck (not Skred).
I think multiple Top 8s within a year or even 6 months would definitely have to be a minimum requirement if you want to keep the Proven subsection under 25 primers.
That definitely seems like way too many lists for established. I don't think it would be a huge deal for veteran users on the site, but for newer players looking to get into Modern, I really question if they're even going to be willing to go through 3 whole pages of primers. Seems more likely that they'll only read the first two pages at most. I think being stricter on the Established requirements and moving most of those asterisked decks to Developing would actually give those decks more exposure than if we kept in Established only for them to be stuck on the last page collecting dust.
I definitely like the idea of just emulating the Legacy subforum at this point and going with option 2.
As for the subcategories, would it be good just to have an "other" category to include strategies that don't operate like traditional aggro/midrange/control decks but aren't really combo decks? Just from reading the State of Modern thread, it seems like for every player that would consider Prison tactics a subsection of Control, there's another that treats Prison as a distinct category. "Big Mana" can also be a bit vague given the differently methods that it can be done as well as the different end goals of those decks. It just seems like it'd be much easier to create a new category that encompasses all the non-traditional style decks than arguing semantics.
Destiny did not port anything into Destiny 2 for its players.
Like what? Unless you paid money for a level 40 character, you weren't charged anything beyond the initial game and the DLC campaigns, and unless I'm mistaken, the Destiny servers are still open. It's a false equivalency.
About the only games that could remotely compare to the scenario are games with micro transactions that received sequels, and even then most, if not all, sequels are reworked from the ground up, making them similar but unique products. MTGO and MTG Arena are the same game with two different UIs
"Tron, Eldrazi Tron, and Titan Shift are only ~12% of the meta combined."
Stop thinking the sky is falling
I used to subscribe to this more, but we now know that Wizards places disproportionate weight on both major event T8s (primarily GP), and that they often weigh the Pro Tour heaviest of all. They also care about MTGO and we have no clue what that looks like. So it might not matter if a deck appears to be at a safe percentage of the overall paper metagame if it disproportionately shows up in areas Wizards cares more about. Not saying anything is currently a problem. I just don't want people to think paper-wide meta share will matter more than the T8s of the PT and GPOKC plus MTGO. It won't when Wizards makes their final decisions.
I guarantee if the PT has a T8 like this one we'll see changes no matter how the overall paper metagame looks. I don't like that anymore than most people, but it's generally how Wizards acts.
I agree that Wizards does weigh the PTs very heavily, but I disagree we hav eno clue about the MTGO meta. We have sites like MTGGoldfish that give approximate meta percentages, and Tron and Scapeshift don't currently have a dangerous meta share, or even are close to it.
Goldfish's numbers use the curated league data though, which makes their online numbers completely inaccurate. I seriously doubt Temur Energy is anywhere close to only 23% of the Standard meta given its paper performance
That being said, it does make me laugh that the most busted deck in NBL Modern is the only busted deck I've seen since I started Modern (a little before the Twin ban for perspective). Not super meaningful, but good for a chuckle
outclass them look like, but I don't think it'd be hard to make a good modal card that can be a 2-of in Modern that doesn't break Standard
Course I've been in exile due to fumigation so maybe I'm just looking for an argument just to maintain human contact
I don't see why we'd unban Punishing Fire when Jund just got a noticeable boost in power via Bloodbraid Elf. Not only that, I don't see what the card does for the meta other than give Jund and other decks more tools to deal with small creature-based decks. If there were a lot more of them in the meta right now I'd say unban it, but while there are certainly some strong small creature-based decks, they aren't in such prominent numbers that we need a card that can potentially push them out of the meta
The quick accessibility issue seems pretty easily fixed by just having a table of contents page like the Current Deck Classification thread, though as Xour said the links seem to be broken at the moment.
Also, will the Current Deck Classification thread ever be updated to include brief descriptions of the decks? It'd be pretty useful for newer players to be able to get a quick idea of what everything does without having to jump into those threads
I think multiple Top 8s within a year or even 6 months would definitely have to be a minimum requirement if you want to keep the Proven subsection under 25 primers.
As for the subcategories, would it be good just to have an "other" category to include strategies that don't operate like traditional aggro/midrange/control decks but aren't really combo decks? Just from reading the State of Modern thread, it seems like for every player that would consider Prison tactics a subsection of Control, there's another that treats Prison as a distinct category. "Big Mana" can also be a bit vague given the differently methods that it can be done as well as the different end goals of those decks. It just seems like it'd be much easier to create a new category that encompasses all the non-traditional style decks than arguing semantics.
About the only games that could remotely compare to the scenario are games with micro transactions that received sequels, and even then most, if not all, sequels are reworked from the ground up, making them similar but unique products. MTGO and MTG Arena are the same game with two different UIs